"Now almost every artist outside of New York is connected with some school or some museum school, and even in New York the majority are. That's an interesting fact when you take the idea of making money, making a living selling paintings. Only a dozen or two painters do that"

Ad Reinhardt reflects on the mid-20th century art world, highlighting a crucial economic and institutional shift for artists. He observes that most artists, whether in New York or elsewhere, are affiliated with schools or museum-based educational programs. This institutional affiliation is not merely a matter of artistic growth or theoretical engagement, but rather a practical necessity. It points to the reality that very few artists, the "dozen or two" Reinhardt references, can sustain themselves solely by selling their work. For the vast majority, teaching or working in educational institutions provides a more reliable livelihood than relying on the unpredictability of the art market.

The passage also subtly interrogates the romantic narrative of the bohemian artist who lives independently through the strength of their creative output. By acknowledging how most artists are wedded to institutions rather than the marketplace, Reinhardt underscores the limited opportunities for financial independence in the arts. It suggests a structural dependency, where most artists must supplement or entirely replace art sales with teaching roles or other connections to academic or museum life.

Reinhardt’s observation challenges assumptions about what it means to be a professional artist. The real financial and social infrastructure of the art world is built less around commercial success and more around the stability offered by educational or institutional ties. This reality can influence both the production of art and the priorities of artists, potentially fostering work made with pedagogical or theoretical aims, rather than purely for the commercial market.

Ultimately, the quote calls attention to a persistent undercurrent in the art world: the myth of artistic self-sufficiency is sustained by the overlooked stability of institutional patronage. It emphasizes the gulf between a small elite of market-successful artists and the broader community, who depend on the educational sphere to sustain their practice and livelihood.